Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A rockfall damaged the residence of Jane Deschner and Jon Lodge (together, Plaintiffs) near the Billings Rimrocks (Rims). The City of Billings owned the property from which the slab fell, and the State maintained a highway that ran on top of the Rims north of Plaintiffs’ property. In 1963, the State improved the highway, rerouting it and installing culverts underneath the new roadway to facilitate water runoff. As relevant to this appeal, Plaintiffs sued the State, claiming inverse condemnation. At trial, Plaintiffs argued that the State’s construction and placement of the highway and a culvert caused an unnatural increase in the amount of water that ran off the highway onto the rockfall site, ultimately causing the slab to fall onto their home. The jury returned a special verdict finding that the State was not negligent, that Plaintiffs’ negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about their own damages, and that the State did not inversely condemn Plaintiffs’ property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s instruction on inverse condemnation was not erroneous. View "Deschner v. State, Department of Highways" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with deliberate homicide in the death of her infant daughter. Defendant moved to suppress the results of a police interrogation, asserting that her admissions that she had shaken her daughter were not voluntary. The district court denied the motion to suppress. A jury found Defendant not guilty of deliberate homicide but guilty of felony assault on a minor. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) based upon the totality of the circumstances, the district court erred by concluding that the interrogation was not unduly coercive or manipulative and by concluding that Defendant was “fully cognizant” of her situation; and (2) therefore, the State failed to meet its burden of proving that Defendant’s admissions were voluntary, and the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress. View "State v. Eskew" on Justia Law

On February 13, 2009, Defendant was charged with motor vehicle offenses. On May 21, 2009, the justice court issued a warrant for Defendant’s arrest for failing to appear. On April 13, 2012, Defendant was arrested on the warrant. Defendant pled not guilty, and trial was set for August 23, 2012. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him for lack of a speedy trial. The justice court concluded that while there was a lengthy delay of 1288 days between the initial charges and the trial date, Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial had not been violated. Defendant then pled guilty to driving with a suspended license. The district court upheld the justice court’s determination that Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial. View "State v. Eystad" on Justia Law

Charlene Berdahl, a court reporter, filed a sexual harassment complaint against Judge George Huss, a district judge, with the Montana Human Rights Bureau (HRB). Huss’s attorney requested that the State agree to defend and indemnify Huss regarding Berdahl's HRB claims. Berdahl and Huss subsequently entered into a stipulated judgment resulting from the State’s refusal to defend and indemnify. The State filed this action seeking declarations that the State had no duty to defend or indemnify Huss against the claims and that Huss had entered a settlement without the consent of the State, which was unenforceable against the State. Berdahl counterclaimed seeking declarations that the State was responsible for the stipulated judgment entered by Berdahl and Huss and that the State was liable under the principle of respondent superior. The district court rejected Berdahl’s request for a declaration and held that the State owed no duty to defend or indemnify Huss. The court further reasoned that Berdahl’s exclusive remedy regarding her respondent superior claim was under the Montana Human Rights Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the State bore no obligation to pay the stipulated settlement between Huss and Berdahl. View "State v. Berdahl" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony theft. Defendant was sentenced to ten years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing, among several other arguments, that the prosecutor committed plain error requiring reversal by stripping Defendant of the presumption of innocence. Specifically, Defendant challenged the prosecutor’s comment during closing arguments that the presumption of innocence had been removed from Defendant. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial, holding that the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments constituted prosecutorial misconduct and required reversal of Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Lawrence" on Justia Law

After the conclusion of a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated driving under the influence with a breath alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.239. Defendant appealed to the district court and filed a motion to suppress the evidence gathered after the vehicle he was driving was stopped by an officer of the Motor Carrier Services Division, Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the MDT officer acted properly and within the requirements of law in stopping Defendant’s truck, and therefore, the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Beaver" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with partner or family member assault (PFMA) for physically assaulting his girlfriend. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the PFMA charge, arguing that the statute under which he was charged violated his right to equal protection because it did not apply to persons in same-sex intimate relationships. The justice court denied the motion, concluding that the statute did not violate Defendant’s right to equal protection because it does not treat similarly-situated individuals unequally. The court then found Defendant guilty. The district court affirmed, concluding that the justice court correctly analyzed Defendant’s equal protection claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the former version of the statute under which Defendant was charged violated equal protection; (2) the unconstitutional provision was unnecessary for the integrity of the law, and severing that provision leaves the remainder of the statute complete in itself; and (3) therefore, Defendant was not entitled to dismissal of his PFMA charge. View "State v. Theeler" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute and criminal possession of dangerous drugs/opiates. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle during a search pursuant to a search warrant, arguing that the police lacked particularized suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that the stop of Defendant was supported by a particularized suspicion that Defendant’s tail light covers violated Mont. Code Ann. 61-9-204(5). View "State v. Massey" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with felony criminal possession. The district court granted the State’s motion for a continuance and reset Defendant’s trial for a day 285 days after his arrest. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for speedy trial violations. The district court denied the motion. Defendant pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his speedy trial motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial, considering the State’s reason for the delay, the simplicity and nature of the charges, and the prejudice to Defendant by his inability to participate in drug rehabilitation programs and community placement because of his unduly lengthy incarceration in county jail, in conjunction with Defendant’s need for treatment. Remanded for dismissal of the charges. View "State v. Mayes" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of threats and other improper influence in official matters, criminal trespass, and disorderly conduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the improper influence conviction and reversed the conviction for criminal trespass, holding (1) the Court declines to consider in this appeal Defendant’s argument that the improper influence statute is unconstitutionally overbroad; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of improper influence; (3) the State did not present sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of criminal trespass; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence of prior incident with the arresting officer; and (5) the Court declines to consider whether Defendant’s counsel provided deficient representation by failing to object to the jury instructions on mental state. View "State v. Spottedbear" on Justia Law